I'm of the mind that independent boolean illuminator controls are Ok. I think that scales better. Not that I could imagine many in use for 1 camera anyway, but some may be colors other than white. Illuminator0 should always correspond to the most common default application of the device. I really just want them to show up in an app. (Maybe I'll write a MythMicroscope plugin so I can preview the subject illumination settings and then use MythTV scheduling to turn on the lights every few hours and record a few frames of bread mold growing...) Regards, Andy Hans Verkuil <hverkuil@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> On 09/09/2010 08:55 AM, Hans Verkuil wrote: >>> On Tuesday, September 07, 2010 23:14:10 Hans de Goede wrote: >> >> <snip> >> >>>> How about a compromise, we add a set of standard defines for menu >>>> index meanings, with a note that these are present as a way to >>>> standardize >>>> things between drivers, but that some drivers may deviate and that >>>> apps should always use VIDIOC_QUERYMENU ? >>> >>> Let's use boolean for these illuminator controls instead. Problem solved >>> :-) >> >> Erm, no. If you take a look at the current qx5 microscope support code in >> the >> cpia2 driver it currently is a menu with the following possible values: >> Off >> Top >> Bottom >> Both >> >> So now lets say we create standard controls for illuminators and make them >> booleans and use 2 booleans. And then modify the cpia2 driver to follow >> the >> new standard. >> >> The user behavior then goes from: >> - user things lets switch from top to bottom lighting >> - go to control >> - click menu drops down select top / bottom >> -> easy >> >> To: >> - user things lets switch from top to bottom lighting >> - go to control >> - heuh 2 checkboxes ? >> - click one check box off >> - clock other check box on >> -> not easy > >So two clicks in the case of a menu and two in the case of a checkbox. >Personally I don't see this as a big deal. But it will be good to get >other people's opinion on this. > >> >> If I were a user I would call this change a regression, and as such I find >> the boolean proposal unacceptable. Maybe we should call the control >> V4L2_CID_MICROSCOPE_ILLUMINATOR >> >> To make it more clear that the menu variant of this is meant for >> microscopes (which typically have either only a bottom illuminator >> or both a bottom and a top one). And if we then ever need to support >> some other kind of illuminator we can add a separate cid for that/ >> >> Otherwise I think it might be best to just keep this as a private control. > >V4L2_CID_MICROSCOPE_ILLUMINATOR might be an option, but then the question >is whether the top/bottom illuminator combination is standard for all (or >at least the majority) of microscopes. If that is indeed the case, then we >can consider this. Although I still think that checkboxes work just as >well. > >But if this arrangement and number of illuminators is specific to this >range of microscopes, then a private control is an option. > >An other option is to have ILLUMINATOR_TOP and ..._BOTTOM boolean >controls. That way at least the name presented to the user makes sense (if >the user can read english of course, but that's a discussion for another - >very rainy - day). > >Regards, > > Hans > >-- >Hans Verkuil - video4linux developer - sponsored by TANDBERG, part of Cisco > >-- >To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-media" in >the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html ��.n��������+%������w��{.n�����{��g����^n�r������&��z�ޗ�zf���h���~����������_��+v���)ߣ�
